• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Environmental Audit Committee Oral evidence: Biodiversity and Ecosystems, HC 636 Wednesday 13 January 2021 Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 13 January 2021. Watch the meeting Members present: Philip Dunne (Chair); Duncan Baker; Barry Gardiner; Mr Robert Goodwill; Marco Longhi; Caroline Lucas; Cherilyn Mackrory; Jerome Mayhew; John McNally; Dr Matthew Offord; Alex Sobel. Questions 169 - 216 Witnesses I: Rt Hon George Eustice MP, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Rt Hon the Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, Minister for Pacific and the Environment, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Rt Hon Christopher Pincher MP, Minister for Housing, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; Richard Pullen, Head of National Biodiversity Policy, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cheryl Case, Deputy Director for International Environmental Negotiations, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and Simon Gallagher, Director of Planning, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Written evidence from witnesses: – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Rt Hon George Eustice MP, Rt Hon the Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, Rt Hon Christopher Pincher MP, Richard Pullen, Cheryl Case and Simon Gallagher. Q169 Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Environmental Audit Committee. We have the fourth session of our inquiry into biodiversity and ecosystems today, and I am very pleased that we are joined by a triptych of Ministers with supporting officials. I would like to start by asking the Rt Hon George Eustice, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to introduce himself, his team of officials and his supporting Minister, Lord Goldsmith. You are very welcome to join us. George Eustice: Thank you very much, Philip. I am George Eustice, Secretary of State at DEFRA. I am joined today by Zac Goldsmith, who is the Minister who leads on all of our international biodiversity work, and also Cheryl Case and Richard Pullen, who are our two officials leading on these matters. Chair: Thank you. We are also joined by the Rt Hon Christopher Pincher, Minister for Housing. Welcome back to the Committee, Chris. Perhaps you could introduce yourself and your official. Christopher Pincher: Thank you, Mr Dunne. It is a pleasure to be back. I have with me Simon Gallagher, who is the director of planning in MHCLG and who, with his team, has been working closely with the teams in DEFRA. Q170 Chair: Thank you all very much indeed. It is very fortuitous timing to have you in front of us this week, given the significant announcements made on Monday at the One Planet conference by the Prime Minister. I would be grateful if we could start the session, Secretary of State, by you providing some context to the lamentable performance of the UK in achieving the Aichi targets set 10 years ago, which were reported on for 2020, where the UK has not met 14 of the 19 targets on biodiversity. How do you see things changing so that we can make a much more powerful contribution over the next 10 years? George Eustice: I think the key thing is that we have made progress on some of the Aichi targets, in particular those that relate to, for instance, the marine environment—there has been some progress there—and those that required Government to better integrate certain aspects of policy. We have made progress there. Stepping back, the real challenge here is that what you need is the policy levers to drive that improvement in biodiversity. While we have made progress in some policy areas—for instance, we have gradually improved the environmental stewardship schemes that we had under the common agricultural policy—they remained a very small part of the overall CAP budget under EU law. We have an opportunity now to do things quite differently to change the policy interventions that can drive some of those improvements. Alongside that, the criticism of the Aichi targets is that they were a commitment to processes rather than outcomes. I know that Lord Goldsmith is working on this in the run-up to the CBD COP 15 this year when those targets are going to be replaced so that they are more meaningful targets to work towards. Fundamentally it is about making sure you have the policy interventions to drive the change, and that is what we have been focusing on now. Q171 Chair: We will come on to the international context in questions a little bit later. Looking at the way in which we measure progress against targets, three years ago the NCC called on DEFRA to develop baselines as a matter of urgency. As I understand it, three years later we still do not have any. Could you or your officials in DEFRA explain why not? George Eustice: I might ask Cheryl or Richard to come in in a moment, but we are doing some work on data around biodiversity. We have commissioned a study to look at the economics of biodiversity, and we obviously have the environmental improvement plan, that first 25-year environment plan, on which we give an annual update on certain key indicators. We are able to monitor those trends, which is in many ways the most important thing to do. I might ask Cheryl or Richard, whoever is best placed to do it, to say a bit more about what we are doing in response to the particular point raised by the Natural Capital Committee. Richard Pullen: Thank you, Secretary of State. The Natural Capital Committee is not directly within my purview, but I would say that we have recognised that there is work to be done here. I would particularly draw attention to the fact that DEFRA is supporting and has funding for taking forward the natural capital and ecosystem assessment approach, which is very much in line with what the NCC is looking for. We recognise that there are some gaps in data, and the NCC has particularly highlighted soils and marine. Q172 Chair: One of the criticisms levelled against the baselines and the indicators is that there are far too many environmental indicators set out in the framework and the 25-year plan, but—possibly as a consequence that there are so many—only 18 have so far been developed. Might it not be better to focus on a smaller number of indicators and targets, and make real progress against those rather than have this extensive wish list? George Eustice: I would say it is quite important to be able to capture the environment in all its complexity. This is never going to be easy. The issue with natural capital is that everybody can agree with the concept, but it is not long before economists cease to be much use to you and what you need is ecologists, entomologists, biologists, people who understand what kind of interventions will turn the tide for a particular species. We have seen this as well in other spheres such as fishing, that you have maximum sustainable yield that started as an economics concept, but very quickly you need marine biologists to make sense of it and move it forward. The environment is always going to be complicated, and you are always going to need a wide range of indicators in order to capture trends. That is not to say that within that you could not identify certain keystone indicators, that if you get a movement in a particular species it is an indicator for a general improvement in the ecosystem that is likely to mean other things are recovering as well. Q173 Chair: You referred to the 25-year environment plan, and clearly the Environment Bill is an important influencer in delivering that plan. Can you first of all tell us, on the Environment Bill, when you expect it to return to the Commons for its Report stage? We were expecting that before Christmas and unfortunately, for reasons we can all understand, that has not happened. George Eustice: Obviously business managers are having to contend with the new situation, the new lockdown and the complexities that poses, but legislation is continuing. My understanding from the Leader of the House is that it is possible the Environment Bill will resume its Report stage in perhaps a couple of weeks’ time, although that is not yet fixed. We hope it will resume as soon as possible. Q174 Chair: That is good to hear, because you have now appointed, I think, the chairman of the Office for Environmental Protection that we helped to approve. Glenys Stacey clearly needs to get on and get her organisation up and running, and it cannot be effective until you have the legislation to underpin it. Last August, under the Environment Bill, you published some draft quality targets on air, water and waste. How will those targets be used to promote biodiversity? I have a particular interest, as you know, in water quality. Clearly the state of our rivers is appalling, and the aquatic species that depend on them are one of the groups of species that are most under threat at the moment. Can you enlighten us as to how you see these targets interlinking with biodiversity targets? George Eustice: We published an initial paper to start engaging both the NGOs and other interested parties in the targets that we will set, obviously in those four areas as you highlight. Following that, we intend to consult, again probably this spring, in a bit more detail about what those targets will be. In the context of water, my view on this, as in the biodiversity target more generally, is it probably makes sense to have several targets rather than a composite target so that you can track progress in individual areas and you do not create the perverse incentive of just focusing on a small number of areas at the expense of others.

Load more

  30

Copy Link